Why Steven Spielberg’s sadistic streak is key to… | Little White Lies

Why Steven Spielberg’s sadis­tic streak is key to his success

21 Jan 2018

Words by Joseph Earp

Intricate masks, bright red and gold, with fierce expressions.
Intricate masks, bright red and gold, with fierce expressions.
He con­sis­tent­ly advo­cates empa­thy and kind­ness, but the direc­tor is a mas­ter of screen cruelty.

Hid­den in the mid­dle of Peter Biskind’s sen­sa­tion­al Hol­ly­wood exposé Easy Rid­ers, Rag­ing Bulls’ is an anec­dote about Steven Spiel­berg that neat­ly sums up how the direc­tor has been per­ceived by the cin­emago­ing pub­lic over the years. Around the time of his 1974 break­through film The Sug­ar­land Express, accord­ing to one exec­u­tive pro­duc­er, Spiel­berg not only slept wear­ing rolled-up socks but sub­sist­ed almost entire­ly on a diet of Twinkies.

It’s almost like find­ing out that Michael Haneke lives on raw meat and red wine, or that Bela Lugosi hat­ed gar­lic. After all, for some, Spielberg’s films are cin­e­mat­ic equiv­a­lent of Twinkies – fluffy, sweet, agree­able but per­haps not nour­ish­ing. His crit­ics call him kitsch”, but even his fans some­times talk about Spiel­berg as though he is some arch sen­ti­men­tal­ist, respon­si­ble for films about as untrou­bled and untrou­bling as ear­ly morn­ing children’s cartoons.

Yet to deny Spielberg’s pen­chant for harm – his blood­lust, his sadism – is to deny not only his best work, but to under­write what makes his entire cin­e­mat­ic uni­verse func­tion. Sure, as so many have sug­gest­ed over the years, Spiel­berg might have the spent the last four decades telling fairy tales, but he has done so in the tra­di­tion of The Broth­ers Grimm rather than Walt Dis­ney, and his moral sys­tem is one defined whol­ly by his capac­i­ty for cruelty.

For Spiel­berg, evil is the nat­ur­al state of the world. Almost with­out a fault, his films open with the slow unfurl­ing of some inter­na­tion­al injus­tice – from slav­ery in Amis­tad, The Col­or Pur­ple and Lin­coln; to com­bat in Schindler’s List, Sav­ing Pri­vate Ryan and War of the Worlds; to pet­ty crime and pun­ish­ment in Catch Me If You Can. Impor­tant­ly, these hor­rors aren’t paint­ed as excep­tion­al or unusu­al. Although unspeak­ably bru­tal, there is a grim kind of inevitabil­i­ty to the infa­mous D‑Day land­ing that opens Sav­ing Pri­vate Ryan: men die because men must die, and they do so with lit­tle fan­fare. They drown and they get shot and their bod­ies lit­ter the beach, and death just hap­pen. Death just is.

Soldiers in battle, some carrying medical supplies, smoke and chaos in background.

This mun­dan­i­ty – this sim­ple, unadorned cru­el­ty – defines the nature of Spielberg’s vil­lains too, and his films are pop­u­lat­ed by char­ac­ters capa­ble of the most banal order of sadism. Amon Goth sits on his bal­cony and picks off con­cen­tra­tion camp inmates with a rifle because he feels like it; because there is noth­ing else he can think of to do. The slavers in Amis­tad and The Col­or Pur­ple dis­guise their cru­el­ty behind that age-old lie: I was just doing my job”. And even the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark are more like busi­ness­men than arch, mous­tache-twirling super vil­lains; men with all the detached moral­i­ty and reproach­able big pic­ture think­ing that defines Wall Street traders.

And that’s not even to men­tion Spielberg’s silent killers – his sharks, his aliens, his dinosaurs, and his trucks. The invaders in War of the Worlds don’t ever seem to be act­ing in accor­dance with some care­ful­ly-drawn out mas­ter­plan, and even if they were, they don’t have the words to express that to their vic­tims. They don’t think about what they do, or try to argue its valid­i­ty: they just do it, and in this way, they are an odd­ly ancient force. They are the wrath of an Old Tes­ta­ment God; they are a plague of locusts ruin­ing a pre­his­toric farmer’s crops; they are the mete­or that wiped out the dinosaurs. They are evil at its most basic, and its most elemental.

This ulti­mate­ly helps to explain the root of the cru­el­ty in Spielberg’s films. There is a kind of his­toric­i­ty to his bar­barism, and his vio­lence seems part of a tra­di­tion; defined by rites and rit­u­als. This is per­haps most clear­ly expressed in Tem­ple of Doom, a mas­ter­piece too often reviled as Spielberg’s most open­ly nihilis­tic work, and a film in which hor­ror itself is revered as a kind of pagan spir­it – an ele­men­tal force in a dual­is­tic world that sim­ply could not exist with­out it.

It might be some­what moral­is­ing to imply that Spiel­berg rel­ish­es all this vio­lence, and it’s cer­tain­ly true that his heroes are as light as his vil­lains are dark. But to deny the sadism of his cin­e­ma is to deny what makes it work – to ignore his nat­ur­al predilec­tions as a film­mak­er. After all, even his hap­py end­ings are often con­ceived first as night­mares. Spiel­berg ini­tial­ly thought Jaws should end not with the sight of a blown-up shark, but with a whole host more cut­ting through the chopped water and head­ing straight for Brody – with evil unde­feat­ed; with evil as com­mon­place and nat­ur­al as the air we breathe.

You might like